binocular wrote:[You've just demonstrated what is potentially a beginning for a bloody fight.

You twist around what I said. If I were to just let it pass, you'd continue believing that you are right, that you represent me correctly, and then you'd twist around some more. Until the situation progressed to a point where only force can stop you.

I am truly, deeply sorry for you if words on a computer screen can even begin to give rise to thoughts of violence in your head.

binocular wrote:The small fire I'm referring to could be the Muslims claiming, for example, that Buddhism is wrong or of the devil. Which they do, and which "good Buddhists" probably usually just let pass. And then come the consequences of letting it pass.

When the sangha was split by Devadatta, why was there no violent retaliation?

How about when the Buddha's Dhamma was deemed "nastika" (literally heretical or "not true") by the Brahmanic establishment?

In the west today, fundamentalist Christians feel the same way about Buddhism. Should we attack them?

In South Korea there is a long standing feud between the Buddhist establishment and Chirstians. It has led to bloodshed on both sides and has weakened the populace's faith in both supposedly peaceful paths.

Violence is not the answer. Hatred is not the answer. Love and understanding are the answers. The Buddha preached loving kindness and compassion, not bigotry and ethnic violence. I would reccomend you reaccquaint yourself with the Tipitaka and with the Brahma-Viharas.

Alex123 wrote:Is it me, or does the trouble start whenever muslims move to a certain country and start demanding their rights?

Those damn Muslims demanding to be treated like people! How dare they!

Alex123 wrote:How do we know that the difficulty in Burma is due to Buddhists and not muslims themselves? Maybe Buddhists are framed

I would say that the evidence all posts to the contrary, and that at least one monk is calling himself the "Buddhist Bin Laden" fairly loudly. But beyond that, the fact that Buddhists (and once again especially Buddhist monastics) should hold themselves to a standard of pacifism and inclusiveness.

Who would be framing the Buddhists? The Burmese government? The western media? Perhaps the hateful bhikkhus are deep cover anti-Buddhists?

Last edited by Alex123 on Sat May 04, 2013 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Paribbajaka wrote:Those damn Muslims demanding to be treated like people! How dare they!

They don't believe that non-believers are people. It is suicidal to be peaceful with someone who would want to convert or kill you if given a chance. It is hard to believe those whose faith teaches and encourages to lie to non-believers.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

I mean this in all sincerity, please tell me when I was acting in a non-loving way. Perhaps my refusal to accept excuses for behavior that is against the core of the Dhamma was perceived as a lack of understanding. However, I don't think there is any reason a Buddhist should be acting in the way these Bhikkhus are.

And this is once again ignoring the fact that the Buddhists are the instigators, not the victims. I am not absolving the Muslims of any responsibility, but it is, once again, relatively clear that an ethnic minority is being persecuted by an ethnic majority and that religion is being used as a poor excuse to justify it. Listen to and observe how these monks are acting. There is little room for bias or misrepresentation. As we have seen, even members of the Burmese sa ngha have begun to speak out.

Last edited by Alex123 on Sat May 04, 2013 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:Those "hostile" were not as hostile as some faiths today. Guess who contributed to driving Buddhism out from Northern India in 12th century?

I am honestly trying to remain calm and civil about this, but the "things are different now" is one of least favorite logical fallacies. I honestly could never stand it, not when I was a kid and "the needy are different now" was trotted out by Catholic priests to excuse why we were ok being not so charitable, and certainly not now.

If worldy conditions can change so much that something as clear cut as the Buddha's staunch pacifism no longer applies, then why follow anything in the Dhamma?

I don't care what happened in the 12th century. To hold people responsible now for what someone did hundreds of years ago is worse than ridiculous and foolish. How does that make any sense? At all?

There are some points of Dhamma that seem open ended. Ahimsa is not one of these. Violence is never the answer for Buddhists. Never. Those who use violence or bigotry in the name of Buddhism are liars, hypocrites, and worse.

How did the Buddha react to Devadatta? PeacefullyHow did he react to Nalagiri? PeacefullyMucalinda? PeacefullyAngulimala? PeacefullyThe Kosalans killing the Sakyans? PeacefullyRival ascetics who disparaged him, his sangha, his dhamma? Peacefully

Quran wrote:-Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7

-Allah will make disbelievers' lives miserable in this world and torture them forever after they die. 2:114

-Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206

-War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

I don't care what someone else's holy book says. I don't care how they act. I care about Buddhism and how Buddhists are expected to act. My religion preaches tolerance and peace. If people from that religion act contrary to the teachings of that religion, they are wrong. Tolerance and peace always win in the long run, and the bigots and the murderers (and their supporters) are remembered in history as exactly that.

Once again, this is not even touching the fact that the Buddhists are the agressors, that the Muslims (in general) have been peaceful for generations.

Violence is always wrong. Violence in the name of peace even more so.

There is no scriptural or historical support for Buddhist monks acting this way. If you are worried that the mean old Muslims are too warlike, ask yourself how Buddhism has survived this long in a warlike world without genocide. It clearly has, so even this point is not valid.

Please show me where the Buddha said racism, opression and war were ok for the right reasons, and I will back down from these points

Last edited by Alex123 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Paribbajaka wrote:I mean this in all sincerity, please tell me when I was acting in a non-loving way. Perhaps my refusal to accept excuses for behavior that is against the core of the Dhamma was perceived as a lack of understanding.

That what I said are "excuses"is only in your mind.

I have said directly that I am not giving excuses:

binocular wrote:

Coyote wrote:That doesn't mean it is permissible or that we should not call those who have ordained in the Buddha Sasana out on behavior that is immoral and that the Buddha strictly prohibited.

Noone said it is permissible. But them not being enlightened could explain why they act the way they do.

but you didn't care, and instead continued claiming that I am excusing the behavior of Burmese monks.

Paribbajaka wrote:I appreciate the irony here, don't get me wrong. You make the point that we cannot assume intentions, when a few posts previously you concoct a scenario that has no supporting evidence in order to try to generate some sympathy for ethnic pogroms.

You should be ashamed of twisting other people's words and impose ill motivations like this.

Mr Man wrote:It really doesn't take any research. "They" are just people like you and me. Why do you want to spread hatred?

If a stranger were to come to live in your house, without your invitation, would you just let him?Would you let him have your house?Would you consider it an act of hatred if you were to ask him to leave?

binocular wrote:People who are merely putting up with others tend to explode, sooner or later.

And they explode because they have greed, hatred, and delusion in their hearts.

Alex123 wrote:It is suicidal to be peaceful with someone who would want to convert or kill you if given a chance. It is hard to believe those whose faith teaches and encourages to lie to non-believers.

What is truly suicidal, Alex, is throwing yourself directly into Hell by reverting to violence.

I hate to sound dramatic here, but I am absolutely horrified that there are self-identified Buddhists on this board who actually support retaliatory aggression against an ethnic or religious minority. Have none of you read the simile of the saw? The idea that any Buddhist, not to even speak of the ordained, should ever kill or praise killing is absolutely absurd. With all wholesome intentions, I say shame on you for disgracing the Buddha's message in this way. Violence is never an acceptable means for preserving the Dhamma. Never. Striking another down with the thought, "May this man not exist, may he be no more" is grounds for rebirth in Hell for ages. Even condoning or otherwise giving cover to those who use violence is a serious unwholesome action. Even if there was a slobbering mass of degenerate Muslim murderers roving through the streets of Burma wantonly killing Buddhists left and right - which, I hope I don't have to point out, is not the case - the correct course of action would still be non-resistance with a healthy dose of metta meditation.

It is incredibly dangerous to entertain the thoughts of ill will you are expressing here. Please consider what you are doing before the negative kamma accrued by such an indulgence of aversion and ignorance comes to bear.

Last edited by LonesomeYogurt on Sat May 04, 2013 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gain and loss, status and disgrace, censure and praise, pleasure and pain:these conditions among human beings are inconstant,impermanent, subject to change.

Alex123 wrote:Those "hostile" were not as hostile as some faiths today. Guess who contributed to driving Buddhism out from Northern India in 12th century?

I recall the plea of Thai monastics who suffered under Christian oppression. The Christian missionaries gave the lay people free food and preached to them, saying that Buddhism is just a preparatory religion, that God has given them Buddhism in order to make them fit and ready to accept Jesus. Those Christians were actively misrepresenting Buddhism and disrespecting it.

What to do against such things?

A similar problem can be faced on the individual level, as a Buddhist practitioner faces false accusations against Buddhism or disrespect of Buddhism. Just standing there and letting it happen can and often does only encourage the accuser. Trying to clear up their misconceptions is impossible because they don't listen.

Mr Man wrote:It really doesn't take any research. "They" are just people like you and me. Why do you want to spread hatred?

If a stranger were to come to live in your house, without your invitation, would you just let him?Would you let him have your house?Would you consider it an act of hatred if you were to ask him to leave?